|Consciousness and Being
The Other Realm? Eumeros?
|What is the link between these two terms,
Consciousness and Eumeros? To explain this I will restate a few fundamental
notions of Lucian Blaga's thinking (excluding those related to the theory
of knowledge, which we covered previously), followed by the main theme of
this exposé, in order to return to Blaga.
The most important notions, the pillars of the philosophical construction made by Lucian Blaga are Mystery and Style. We saw that mystery (1) is a central notion in the theory of knowledge. Mystery remains a base plate throughout Blaga's thinking.
Anthropogeny, as seen by Blaga, is linked to the conscious-making of the presence of mysteries for the primitive man, for the animal that transforms into man. The animal that lead, up to that point, an existence for the immediate and security, for its own protection, becomes interested in what is around it and is astonished, enraptured in front of the surrounding mysteries. When its mind's eye opened it saw, it felt, so many things it did not understand, it could not explain. It couldn't explain lightning and thunder, rain and rivers, the sun and the moon. What could it do? Nothing more than starting to think about what is happening and how it can unveil these happenings. Man was born when he realized that he lives surrounded by mysteries and that he desires to unveil them, to push aside the veil that covers them. From then until today, maybe until the end of days, man lives, exists, for mystery and for revelation. That's why man became a creator, his destiny is that of a creator because only through creation can the heavy veils that cover mysteries be uncovered, unveiled. The artist is a creator, the man of science is a creator, the peasant who gives us food is a creator, the carpenter, the joiner, the mechanic, the architect, the ingenious also named engineer, any technologist who helps us live, be, they are all creators.
It is true that the world of human creations also means a great responsibility. For Blaga, metaphysics, or rather the metaphysician means "the assertion of a spirit, of a personality, on the plane of a great compromise between creation and responsibility" (2) . I believe here Blaga talks of himself, the metaphysician, who introduced in this domain the stylistic categories, the stylistic matrix, just as many metaphysical structures that help us, that make knowing possible, structures that, on the other hand, introduce what he called the transcendent censorship imposed by the Great Anonymous, the a-stylistic being, a-stylistic because he is in possession of absolute knowledge. The same structure, the same metaphysical structures make human knowledge possible and they give it limits. We are only able to know what our stylistic matrix allows us to know. Our creative destiny pushes us to reveal mysteries, mysteries that, at least some of them, are forbidden to us by our cognitive structures. That's why we cannot, we will not be able to know them.
The metaphysician finds himself here, as Blaga tells us, in the splendid situation of knowing his powers, knowing his limits, and of carrying all these responsibilities. It is good to understand from the beginning the responsibility of the creator that we are, the responsibility of man. Only through artistic, scientific, spiritual creations can we, humans, infiltrate the world's mysteries.
There is a filiation that Blaga did not mention, or mentioned too little, as I pointed out in the first chapter. It refers to Immanuel Kant. The thinker from Konigsberg writes in the first edition of The Critique of Pure Reason, Introduction V, related to the introduction of the concept of a priori: "Here is hidden a certain mystery..." I wonder, why did he take this passage out of subsequent editions? Maybe mystery did not sound good next to pure reason (3) . But mystery sounds good in Blaga's thinking.
|Style is not only a poetic, literary, notion,
as we might expect, it is also a philosophical, metaphysical one, introduced
by Blaga; it is the notion through which he will be able to speak, at a
philosophical level, about the unconscious. Every man has his own style
of life, work, walking, talking, loving, writing, making music, or listening
to music. Style is an unmistakable mark that separates man from man, it
is an individual characteristic. Why? Because style is given by the unconscious
world of each of us. Blaga names the unconscious the other realm. There
is a realm of our conscious activities, in which we are present with everything
we do, and an unconscious realm, which is completely different from the
first. Freud met the unconscious by studying dreams; the poet Blaga understands
the unconscious as a stylistic characteristic. Stylistic is everything we
have without knowing it, and it influences our life as a friend or an enemy,
but mostly as a friend. Memory has its dwelling in style, so do everything
that we inherit from our parents and great-parents; here are Freud's complexes,
but also the unconscious Noos (Blaga), our intelligence that does not have
to always function consciously; here is the explanation of personance, as
well as all the stylistic categories that Blaga talks about; here are all
automatisms, as well as a hidden part of our thinking (4).
From here Blaga reaches the categories of the unconscious, personance -that constant communication of the unconscious with our conscious state, he reaches the stylistic matrix, that categorial bouquet that characterizes our personality, that makes us a person, only one kind of person; he will end with what he called the transcendent censorship of the Great Anonymous.
Blaga will construct based on the Kantian model, even if he does not recognize it, with the help of Space and Time, these pure forms of the sensible intuition (in Kant), a bundle of categories, which he called stylistic. He named them categorial doublets because they double, they complete the Kantian table of categories (5). These categories together form what he called a Stylistic Matrix, an unconscious structure according to which the man that we are guides himself, a stylistic structure of which we are not conscious and which functions almost automatically. We don't know it, we don't feel its presence, we are not conscious that we have such a matrix that leads us into everything we do.
Besides these categories there can be others, a different kind of horizon or time or space, a different kind of attitude or a possible combination of two or more categories that result into another category. In any case one stylistic matrix, that categorial bouquet, cannot have more than one category from the mentioned groups, from each categorial group.
Due to his stylistic matrix man manifests himself within stylistic limits, in other words man has style. We must also mention that our own stylistic matrix determines our personality, it is our destiny.
Through our stylistic matrix we understand the world, in the same way but also a little differently for each of us. For Blaga abyssal categories describe an Abyssal Noology because they have an Abyssal Noos, an unconscious spirit. It is the bright side of our unconscious, which we have called Eumeros, the good side.
Transcendent censorship is a very important notion in Blaga because everything we do is censored by the categories we carry. The categories that form our knowledgeable matrix especially the stylistic doublet, success in having individual values, in being strongly individualized through the interpenetration of multiple categories. The transcendent censorship imposed by the Great Anonymous (the supreme principle of existence) is also individualized, even though we all have approximately the same categories, and the Great Anonymous is a transcendent presence. It is a transcendent presence, which works on us through categories. Maybe we should consider the categories to be a transcendent that is in us. I don't know how important the Great Anonymous is in the Blagan metaphysical system, but I do know that the other realm is in us, and the categories, evidently, are too. It is curious that Kant did not notice this double function of categories; they have their knowing function through which they also impose a censorship of reality. In other words and from a biological perspective, we see with the eyes what is around us, but we cannot see inside a suitcase, we can use our legs to walk and run, but we cannot run at a speed of 200 Km/hour, because both our sight and legs have limits that can be equalized with an anatomical, functional censorship, they have limits that refuse another sight or speed of motion. Our mental structures with which we know are at the same time a censorship of another knowledge that surpasses the possibilities, which these structures offer us. Although it is very simple, it seems difficult to understand. I will quote from Blaga " .For reasons of cosmic equilibrium, and maybe in order for man to be maintained in an unending creative state, in any case in the advantage of existence and man, he is refused, by way of a transcendent censorship, imposed structurally to knowledge, the possibility of positively and absolutely containing the world's mysteries. As long as we consider the intellectual categories (the idea of substance, of causality, etc.) to be moments and structures imposed to the human spirit, due to a transcendent censorship, we think we are entitled to make the statement that abyssal, stylistic categories may also be considered integrant moments of a transcendent control. The stylistic matrix, the abyssal categories, are transcendent halts " (6). As far as the reason, reasons, for which man, gifted by God and nature with cognitive possibilities, is also censored by these possibilities, which he cannot surpass, I will let everyone think about to their heart's delight, and find them.
It is important that style opens our way, a different way than that which Freud took, it opens the way to the other realm, to the unconscious, not to the unconscious of complexes (which it can contain) but to eumeros, to the good part of this unconscious, which opens toward philosophy.
|Conscience as a whole is our individual
existence. We are persons, I am alive, I am, we are not talking about another
person, but about myself, this unique being. Who gives me this feeling,
what part of my body gives me this confidence that I am? That I exist? Neurophysiologists
respond clearly: the brain! Which part of the brain? Not one part! The brain
as a whole. Instinct, sensibility, feelings, reason, hopes, understanding,
everything that is in the brain. The connections, the synapses form very
early in our lives, even in our intrauterine life. Connections are formed
between the old part of the brain and the newer parts. Such dynamic connections
exist, for example, between the frontal lobe, the intelligent, rational
function, and the cerebellar tonsil, the hypothalamus (the old depository
brain of instincts). During ontogenetic evolution connections are formed
between the motor, optical, auditory, and olfactory cortical areas. The
connections take place very early in a child's life and at certain intervals
of time (as Piaget said). The emotional function of children, of adolescents,
of youth, is dominated by the cerebellar tonsil and the hypothalamus, by
instincts and less by the frontal area, as it is in adults. It is a fact
that can explain the misunderstanding between generations, misunderstanding
that propagates from generation to generation.
Neurophysiologists tell us that we do not have great anatomical modifications in ontogenesis. Instead there are great possibilities for reorganization of the connections, especially in childhood and adolescence. That's why learning is productive especially at these ages. There is also the other side of the coin, what is not used from what we learn is easy to lose. It seems that the solution to maintaining a young brain is to continue to learn, to solicit our brain at any age, even if the results are not as good as we advance in age.
What is conscience?
Conscience has a conscious function as well as an unconscious one, structure of which any theory of conscience should make note.
Why is this important? Because usually conscience and consciousness are considered synonyms. No difference is made between these two notions.
Blaga draws our attention to the fact that there is a constant communication between the unconscious and the conscious through personance. It is a sort of Pinocchio's cricket, a sort of elf who whispers to us what to do and what not to do. It is Socrates' Daimon, a communication in which the unconscious with its intelligence, the unconscious noos, services our conscious activity. It probably is, as we will see, a bi-univocal communication, not only in one direction.
What I want to underline and make the purpose of these pages is the fact that the unconscious also has a luminous, intelligent side, it has spirit, it has what we have called eumeros. Jung's archetype is also in this luminous part. But archetypes are very vaguely defined in Jung. A structure, probably maintained genetically, very old, which we all have in our memory. A memory of the beginnings of humanity. Freud, rather late, also needs a creative, good part of the unconscious, which he can no longer describe as anything else than subsumed to an unconscious dominated by instincts, especially by the sexual instinct and its complexes, it is subjugated still to the dark part of the unconscious, to shadow. Creative sublimation has hanging from their feet the complexes it cannot get rid of. Unfortunately the great success over the unconscious achieved by Freud is subjugated to this thinking that speaks about an unconscious that is at the limit of the pathological, and which was and is developed especially by physicians who deal with mental health. It is true that psychoanalysis is a branch of psychiatry, which also applies to healthy individuals and which is not far from the state of psychic suffering.
I believe that we can depart from the limit of the pathological in the study and use of the unconscious. Blaga shows us that in philosophy-because, as we underlined earlier, philosophy can be interested in the world of the unconscious-the good part, the luminous part of the unconscious, which we called eumeros, is an important area that cannot be overlooked. That luminous part helps us live and we feel this help at every step, even if we are not conscious of it. Our psychic health can also be maintained through a good functioning of the unconscious through its eumeros. It is important if we can think that our psychic health, a good cerebral function can be sustained in another way than trying to remove the consequences of certain complexes, which we may or may not have. It is another perspective on health.
Neurophysiologists speak of a symphony of the cerebral function, a life symphony in which each note, each instrument has its value. This symphony helps us maintain the harmony of our mind. It is our hope, but it is not always like this. There may appear showy accents, wrong notes, an instrument may deteriorate and its sound may bother. The dissonances that are no longer music, sometimes screams or desperation or freezing fear. This is the stress with which we are assaulted. The endurance of the human brain is variable. Whether we will be able to overcome a shock, a psychic trauma, or not depends on anatomy and the brain's functional possibilities. Only then, when chimeras gather, may psychoanalysis have value. Everything depends on countless variables, little known coordinates, such that we can eventually avoid a psychic aggression, a tragedy, illness. Everything depends on each individual's psychic endurance and psychic force. A common situation in the case of natural calamities (earthquakes, tsunamis, fire, volcanic eruptions) as well as in train, ship, or airplane accidents, or in situations of war. Those who save themselves may have different psychic disorders induced by the life-risking situations they went through, and which other cannot overcome. Psychic illness or a certain degradation of the psychic function may take place.
In all these life-risking situations, and I don't know who doesn't live through at least one such situation in their lives, the eumeros is of the greatest use. A man who knew to maintain his mind balanced, who knew to minimize the noxious effects of a shock, a trauma, a loss, who knew to maintain a balance in inter-human relationships, who was able to keep his calm when upset with someone, who did not engage easily in disputes, who knew to guard his sleep and make it restful, will suffer less in a life-risking situation in which his psyche is solicited enormously. There are moments, as I have shown, in which we almost have an automatic pilot that serves us when we walk, talk, write, drive, in the same manner we can by lead (of course a partially assisted lead, but very efficient, because it saves us from many conscious steps that would involve a lot of wasted time, essential factor in life-risking situations) when danger is near us. Some name this "good instinct"; instincts are instincts, they cannot be good or bad because they exist in order to protect us. If the eumeros that is next to them was taken care of, educated as much as we can educate an unconscious state, then these good instincts are the eumeros.
Let's attempt a hypothesis on memory. We know that short term memory, the one that reserves everything that we register consciously or unconsciously in one day, is located in the frontal lobes, while long term memory makes halts in diverse parts of the brain, in motor, sensitive, olfactory, auditory, optical, and other zones.
The enormous quantity of perceptions housed in the frontal lobe must be liberated and sent, each perception, to its place of keeping. How does one liberate the frontal lobe? Probably during sleep a whole series of rearrangements takes place, which results in the immediate discharge of memory. Once again, during sleep, most probably during dreams, during REM sleep, with rapid eye movements. Dreams are a witness of these rearrangements.
In long term memory there probably exists an economical solution of memorization that cannot take place in short term memory. Perceptions can be deposited on different levels of integration in a similar manner to a dictionary like Roget's Thesaurus, which is organized by notions or by the structure of a lattice-style logic, as I described in the first volume about Blaga's philosophy (7).
A traveler through interwar Japan was telling me about how a letter reaches a Japanese. There are no street names or numbers (of course not in the center of big towns), the mailman orients himself by the most important inhabitant of the neighborhood, and all other inhabitants obtain a number starting from this central neighbor, who attracts all the rest around him, like a sort of agglutination, or the way plants arrange themselves around a sun. It is an economic modality, from the point of view of orientation, of organization of livable space. There are all sorts of situations used in order to minimize the search within a busy space, I don't know which is the one chosen by our brain, but I know that it was able to find it and use it.
I also know that men of science, artists, sometimes wake up in the morning illuminated because they found overnight the solution that escaped them in the evening. I also know that the eumeros is the most secure and good servant of ours (that who offers us services-in Latin it was the slave, servus). It seems it is no longer the case to consider the unconscious a damaging demon, as it was considered by the young Jung and Freud.
Maybe it is important to understand that the brain's function is global, unitary; reason, the instincts, and the affective embrace each other and complete each other's functions; they are linked in our conscience both consciously and unconsciously, conscience which his unique for each of us, it is our individual being.
|Abyssal Noology and Transcendent Halts.|
| It seems that we are in an area of psychology,
although our preoccupation, the same as Blaga's, is philosophy. Blaga used
the unconscious, the abyssal noology, the stylistic categories, and the
stylistic matrix in order to say something new, for him, about human knowledge.
Knowledge! A great problem never resolved very well.
How is knowledge possible? It is the question Plato asks himself. He tries to answer it by proposing a transcendent world, an overly-sensitive world, a world of ideas. What is this word of ideas, which is so blamed by those who don't have philosophical understanding? It is a world of universals, it is, still according to Plato, the real world, as opposed to our world, which is a sort of shadow. Maybe here he had a bad inspiration. Our world of universal shadows, the world of particulars, of individuals, is a world that has the right to be. On the other hand, maybe the universals cannot be unless the individual is, the individual exists. It is a discussion that maintains its interest.
Bertrand Russell shows us that we cannot escape universals, in any sentence we encounter the universal, we cannot build an inter-human communication without these universals. Socrates is a man, man is a universal. There are no sentences without predicates. Predicates are universals.
Bishop Berkeley said "esse est percipi", because perception is what we have in our mind, and we have in our mind only what God has in mind. Perceptions are ideas in our mind and the guarantee of the possibility of knowledge is the fact that they are all in God's mind. It is a philosophical construct that is not far from Plato's, although there are differences.
The revolution in knowledge is done by Immanuel Kant with the synthetic judgments that bring something new, as opposed to the analytical ones. Something new that is an a priori. Analytical judgment brings nothing new to knowledge, while the mathematical judgment '7+5=12' has 12, which is not in the premise.
Where does this knowledge come to us from? From the noumenal world of the thing in itself (das Ding an Sich). We are no longer talking of a transcendent world, like in Plato or Berkeley, it is the world that surrounds us, but which we cannot know. Then how is knowledge possible?
We have two pure forms, two concepts of our sensibility, of our sensitive intuition, of our immediate intuition: the concepts of Space and Time. Kant introduces the possibility of phenomenal knowledge. The thing in itself cannot be known, but helped by "universals", which are Space and Time, by categories, we may have knowledge of phenomena, a knowledge that seems immediate but is mediated by Space and Time.
It is something completely new compared to Plato and Berkeley. The transcendent world is descended into a world in which we live, the transcendental world (Kant), but because we don't have feelings and mental structures able to know it directly, as it is, a world of "universals", which is a real mystery for us, who only have the possibility to approximate with the aid of the two "universals" that are offered to us by our sensitive intuition, Space and Time. Two "universals" that, for us, are an a priori! A sort of gift whose giver we don't know but we can approximate, we can guess, and he exists in our intuition.
Space the Time make possible, in turn, a limited series of "universals", which we have in our mind from birth, Categories. With Space, Time, and the Categories we have the possibility to understand (Verschtand) the world, to know, a mediated knowledge. This means that we have mental structures that allow knowledge, which we can only have in the way that they are structured. We saw that the same mental structures allow us knowledge but they also limit this knowledge, they allow us to know only what we can know. They are our knowledge and some halts of knowledge, some limits of knowledge.
Let's pay a little attention to some words used by Kant. Space and Time are pure forms, it couldn't be otherwise in a book entitled Pure Reason. They are pure forms of a sensitive intuition. This is a problem. If it is intuition and it is sensitive that means that we use it without being conscious. Kant could not use the word "unconscious", which appeared in literature only in the romantic era. That's why I propose that we pay again attention to Blaga's thinking. Let's not forget, Kant could not have finalized his thinking without Plato, Berkeley and Hume, the same as Blaga would not had been a thinker without them and Kant.
Let's not forget that the fight to understand knowledge cannot have an ending, because revealing this mystery, however close we can get to a complete revelation, we don't have an organ, and we don't have the "universals" necessary for a revealing step.
We saw that Blaga introduced the unconscious in philosophy through the category of Style. Stylistic categories, Abyssal Noology that is stylistic, the Stylistic Matrix, are just as many basic notions in his philosophy. Personance, the link between the unconscious and the conscious, link that Blaga sees as a key to our existence. Style is actually such an association, a synthesis, between the unconscious and the conscious activity, it is an interpenetration between these two parts of our conscience and a determinant factor in our individuality, in the defining of our individuality.
We saw that he chooses a large variety of categories based on the forms of sensitive intuition, Space and Time, which he names spatial or temporal Horizons. The same situation takes place in Kant where categories are linked by space and time (8).
Blaga was impressed by Freud ever since he was a student in Vienna, by the realm of the unconscious. On the other hand he understands, probably, that the Kantian a prioritism produced through intuition and sensibility are notions that subscribe perfectly to the unconscious. He writes, in his youth, two plays in a Freudian manner. Later he will distance himself from the pansexual conception of an unconscious at the limit of the pathologic, and he approaches Kant, building what he named the Abyssal Noology, a chapter of philosophy in which the unconscious is the principle novelty and in which spirit has its place. But his road through the unconscious, in order to differentiate himself from Freud, was through Style, through a philosophy of style.
It wasn't easy for Blaga because he was attacked from all directions. First he was attacked by those who thought that he was vulgarizing the Freudian concept, which he did not understand. Then, after the success with the Mioritic Space, the exacerbation of Romanianism, with the sophianic perspective and the transcendent that descends, followed the attack of Father St?niloaie who writes, under legionary political command, a book, published in 1942, but first published in the Romanian Telegraph (1940-1942). I have never read another such text in which ecumenical mildness blends itself with ridiculous and clearly malevolent accusations against Lucian Blaga's philosophy. Among others Blaga is accused of speaking of the Great Anonymous as of God, and that he uses the Luciferic knowledge as a diabolical knowledge. All these were happening although Father St?niloaie had understood perfectly Lucian Blaga's philosophy, better than it is understood by many commentators (9).
What I would like for you to retain related to Blaga's thinking, for the economy of this final part, is that man is a creative animal, which differentiates him from all other animals on earth. Our joy, our hope, our curse, is to create, to make something, a chair, a table, a house, a child, a painting, to compose music, or anything else! Even crimes, war, theft, are creative actions, bad but creative actions (everything depends on the moral structure of every man, on that daimon of each of us, and it also depends, in social situations, on the morality of the power of constraint).
What are transcendent halts for knowledge? Let's recall what the transcendent mean for Blaga. The transcendent postulated through the existence of the Great Anonymous is actually our unconscious, maybe a collective unconscious (as Jung tells us), it is the complexity of style, the stylistic matrix, the categories of understanding (Kant) and the abyssal categories, just as in Plato or Berkeley, the universal, the "Universals". The existence of a transcendent that descends, like Kant's transcendental, is a universal that is here, in our world, even if it is called transcendent (to be different from Kant). The unconscious seen as a universal is the collective unconscious, or the Archetypes. Moreover, he does not agree with the loneliness of archetypes, because the universal is like Cantor's transfinite sets, it can have different powers. There is the universal of archetypes, of the human species, be it Neanderthal or Homo sapiens. Under these universals of humanity, included in them, are the universals of human races, of people, of nations, of human groups, or families! All these universals, like in a cascade, gather in the individual, in categories, in the stylistic matrix.
Here something may be difficult to understand: we call transcendent that which surpasses us, transcends us. Usually we think that the transcendent is somewhere in the clouds, somewhere far where we can't reach it. It is true that we can't really reach it, but it is here, not far, within us, it is the unconscious with all the categories it possesses, because the unconscious is the other realm, a realm that transcends us. The universal is what transcends us, the "universals" always surpass us, they are something other than our individuality that pours into conscious activity, the moment that we live but we can never capture. Easy to say! The individual that we are is a complexity of individual characters, of individual notes, of the universal, of universals (10)!
The general, the universal, is Blaga's transcendent. If we could think of a matrix of knowledge, a unique matrix that contains all categories, be they categories of understanding, Kantian categories, as well as categories of style, stylistic, abyssal, a matrix that gathers, globalizes everything that is general, universal, everything that transcends us, categories that we already use without being conscious of it, we could say without really making a mistake that all categories belong to the unconscious. All categories of understanding belong to the unconscious because we live in a room, an apartment, we are in a town that exists somewhere, and we know what we did yesterday, what we are doing today, and we hope we will have something to do tomorrow, because Space and Time are concepts offered to us by the sensitive a priori intuition (Kant), and intuition and sensibility are not far from the unconscious, they are functions with a high degree of non-consciousness. This is why, I repeat, philosophers should accept the unconscious. What Blaga names stylistic cover or is covered by the categories of understanding (das Vershtand); we have all of them to serve us, they are our existence.
It is something very similar to the genome. It is ours, it is mine, but is also belongs to others. It is a general, a universal. With the genome we have the general, the universal, in us, and we cannot be anything else other than what it is capable of determining. With the matrix of understanding, of knowledge, we can know the world, the real world, but we can only know what these universals allow us to know, and we have no assurance that it is the real world, that it is the same with our senses: we see, we hear, we feel, we smell, only what anatomically we are given to feel. I used the plural because it is the same for all, even if for each it is more or less different. A lot is hidden to our senses, just as a lot is hidden to our understanding.
Maybe it is very important to understand that the transcendent halts of knowledge are in us, are our categories, our matrix of knowledge through which we know the world. It is equally important that we can only know through the filter of these categories, only what these categories permit, that's why the noumenal world cannot be known, we don't have "categories" with which to know it. What else is this but a halt in knowledge, whether it is an immanent halt (a halt because we cannot surpass the world of phenomena) or a transcendent halt is only a problem of language.
Instead of a conclusion, allow me to remind you the following:
The main ideas in Lucian Blaga's philosophy are: Mystery, Style, the Transcendent, and Creativity.
We saw that mystery is the basis of the possibility to know, to understand the limits of knowledge. If we know that we have limits in knowledge and that we will not be able to lift the veil off of some mysteries, we can believe more in our limited powers.
Maybe the same way, if we know that reality cannot be known in its intimacy we can accept knowledge relative to a certain portion of reality, rejecting relativism, which tends to introduce total non-determination. The portion we are able to know from reality has the value of truth for Blaga.
Blaga uses style as another access bridge for the unconscious in philosophy. We have stylistic categories, we have categorial groupings with which each of us can know reality in the same manner, but also a little differently, for each of us. This Stylistic Matrix with which the categories of knowledge can also be associated, categories proposed by Immanuel Kant, can form what we named a Matrix of Knowledge, matrix that we use as unconsciously, in its totality, as the stylistic categories, as the Stylistic Matrix.
The transcendent is what surpasses us. The Stylistic Matrix, the Matrix of Knowledge surpasses us, although we have it inside us. In the Matrix of Knowledge is partially stored the history of humanity, maybe even the history of life, but also the history of my family. This happens with each of us. We all unconsciously possess the universal knowledge of the world in this matrix, we all have something that surpasses us, but is at the same time intimately ours as individuals. The Transcendent is within us!
Creativity is the goal, the finality of the human being on Earth. Man was cursed when he was banished from Heaven. Animals and plants live in a sort of Heaven (if man does not intervene). Man has become the master of animals, plants, and all of Earth's riches through his creativity. Together with the banishment from Heaven we bear the curse of creativity! For better or for worse.
|Note de subsol:|
|1. We learned in the previous chapter the role of mystery in Lucian Blaga's theory of knowledge.|
|2. Trilogia culturii, in Geneza metaforei si sensul culturii, p.478, Ed. Fundatiilor Regale, editia princeps.|
|3. Maybe Blaga is right when he asks that the notion of mystery receive a greater value. Maybe he is not right. Mystery is a word with a transcendent charge. There is in it something from beyond that is difficult to catch. But Blaga is still right because, for him, the world beyond is in us, it is our unconscious, it is what we called eumeros.|
|4. Personance, that secret advisor of each one of us, Socrates' daimon, Pinocchio's cricket. Stylistic Categories, transcendental Censorship, and the Great Anonymous.|
|5. Spatial horizons: the
infinit three-dimentional space, the undulated space, the alveolar space.
Temporal horizons: the fountain time, the cascade time, the river time.
Atmospheric categories: affirmation, negation, and neutrality toward everything that takes place in the spacial or temporal horizons, an axiological unconscious. Attitude toward horizons: Anabasis-going ahead, catabasis-retracting in space and/or time, staying in one place.
Formative categories: the individual, the typical, the elemental.
|6. Lucian Blaga, Trilogia Culturii, geneza metaforei si sensul culturii, Fundatia Regala Pentru Literatura si Arta, Bucuresti, 1945, Editia Princeps, p.480.|
|7. Philosophy Through Metaphors, chapter Instead of Logic, AB Romania, Bucurresti, 2000, p. 58.|
|8. Kant makes a reference in The Transcendent Doctrine of Judgment, Chapter 3, On the principle of distinguishing all objects in general into phenomenon and noumen, to the fact that all categories are possible due to the concepts of Space and Time. Unity, Multiplicity, Totality, Reality, Negation, Limitation, Substance, Accident, Cause and Effect, Activ and Passive, Possible-Impossible, Existence-Nonexistence, Necessity-Contingency, are categories that cannot be understood without the notions of space and time.|
|9. Dumitru Staniloaie, Pozitia domnului Lucian Blaga fata de Crestinism si Ortodoxie, Ed. Paideia, 1993, p.107.|
|10. What trouble with the plural for universal!|